Bigger Impact Last Season: Vander Blue or Davante Gardner?

[g0lden3agle]

Simply asking the question is "hating" on Vander. Not to mention that the way the question is phrased ("bigger, positive impact") suggests that Vander had a bigger impact, but much of it was negative. Vander played 703 minutes for a Sweet 16 team, while Gardner played 296. If Blue's positive impact wasn't greater than Gardner's then Buzz should have been fired. Don't get me wrong, I think Gardner is going to be a stud for MU but to ask that question at this point is asinine.

A year from now, I hope we're having a similar discussion about who was more worthy of their first team All Big East selection: Blue or Gardner.

This is definitely a good point.  Ners- Your 8 hour workday isn't a fair assumption because in a basketball game you have to earn your minutes, whereas in a workday everyone has to show up and put in the same amount of time.  Vander didn't simply fall into those 703 minutes, he earned a majority of them.  While Gardner may well have earned more minutes in the eyes of some posters, isn't the fact that he visibly couldn't play those minutes he earned because he was so gassed say something about his impact?

[Skatastrophy]

I think Gardner played more explosive, exciting minutes than Blue did.  I was really impressed with his energy coming off of the bench last year.

I think that Blue was an unbelievable team player last year.  He let his offensive game play 3rd fiddle to guys like DJO, Crowder and Buycks while keeping his energy up and playing some awesome (and very consistent) D.

It's great to be having this conversation about which Freshman contributed more on a team that has seen very little Frosh PT.  In my opinion, Blue wins the contest hands down.  I don't think our team would have won as many games without Blue putting all of his energy into defense.  It's just tough to prove since there aren't nearly as many defensive stats out there as there are offensive.

Good on both of them, though!

[Henry Sugar]

I'd argue that Blue was the least valuable member of the squad last year.  I believe his overall contribution to the team was the largest net negative.

Blue had the worst offensive rating on the team, and still took a significant percentage of shots.  He was a boat anchor on offense.  There's no way Blue's defense was good enough to make up for how bad he was offensively. 

Just to remind everyone talking about Blue's defense, MU was not good defensively last year. 

Compared to being the least valuable member of the team, Gardner had a better impact on the team.

[bilsu]

You have to consider the impact the player actually had on the team, which is hard to determine. The impact would be the player's value over the player or players that would have taken that player's minutes, if that player did not play during the season. Take Gardner off the team and somebody would have gotten Gardner's minutes. Take Blue off the team and somebody would have gotten Blue's minutes. In my opinion MU would  have more effectively replaced Blue's minutes than Gardner's minutes, therefore Gardner's impact was actually greater. Also, if you bring practices into the equation. I am sure the benefit of Otule having to practice against a big body far outweight any benefit MU got from Blue practicing with the team.

[NersEllenson]

Simply asking the question is "hating" on Vander. Not to mention that the way the question is phrased ("bigger, positive impact") suggests that Vander had a bigger impact, but much of it was negative. Vander played 703 minutes for a Sweet 16 team, while Gardner played 296. If Blue's positive impact wasn't greater than Gardner's then Buzz should have been fired. Don't get me wrong, I think Gardner is going to be a stud for MU but to ask that question at this point is asinine.

A year from now, I hope we're having a similar discussion about who was more worthy of their first team All Big East selection: Blue or Gardner.

Surprised at your reaction here Merritt.  Seems you and Brew are overly defensive when it comes to evaluating Vander's play last year.  Asking this poll question is in NO WAY HATING on Vander - and I cannot for the life of me understand how phrasing a question:  bigger, positive impact "suggests that Vander had a bigger impact buy much of it was negative."    Nonetheless, I'll go remove the word "positive" from the poll question as it seems to be causing a problem as written. 

[Silkk the Shaka]

We don't win the USF or UConn games without Blue's contributions, meaning we don't make the NCAA's and don't make the S16. He hit a huge 3 against Bucknell during the comeback too. People act like all he did was drag the team down. McNeal's shot was butt ugly early on too, then at the end of his junior year it started to come around and he blew up senior year. Give the kid time, he was the age of a high school senior last year.

[Lennys Tap]

I'd argue that Blue was the least valuable member of the squad last year.  I believe his overall contribution to the team was the largest net negative.

Blue had the worst offensive rating on the team, and still took a significant percentage of shots.  He was a boat anchor on offense.  There's no way Blue's defense was good enough to make up for how bad he was offensively. 

Just to remind everyone talking about Blue's defense, MU was not good defensively last year. 

Compared to being the least valuable member of the team, Gardner had a better impact on the team.

Your numbers confirm what I saw with my own eyes. Guess that means we (and lots of others) have "low basketball IQs".

[Lennys Tap]

We don't win the USF or UConn games without Blue's contributions, meaning we don't make the NCAA's and don't make the S16. He hit a huge 3 against Bucknell during the comeback too. People act like all he did was drag the team down. McNeal's shot was butt ugly early on too, then at the end of his junior year it started to come around and he blew up senior year. Give the kid time, he was the age of a high school senior last year.

There were games we wouldn't have won without Vander. There were also games we lost that we might have won without him and games we won in spite of him. Offensively, he was the worst of anyone who got significant time - He was a poor 2point and free throw shooter. He was a really bad 3 point shooter. His ball handling wasn't great. I agree with you that he was a freshman and a young freshman at that. I agree that he has the potential to be a special player down the road. But last year he WAS a drag on the offense and no amount of sugarcoating can change that.

[APieperFan3]

There were games we wouldn't have won without Vander. There were also games we lost that we might have won without him and games we won in spite of him. Offensively, he was the worst of anyone who got significant time - He was a poor 2point and free throw shooter. He was a really bad 3 point shooter. His ball handling wasn't great. I agree with you that he was a freshman and a young freshman at that. I agree that he has the potential to be a special player down the road. But last year he WAS a drag on the offense and no amount of sugarcoating can change that.

Saying that he was a "young" freshman is kind of a moot point. (He's not going to be an "old" freshman this year) It's like saying "Oh, I missed that catch b/c the sun was in my eyes"...Sure, if that makes you feel better for missing it, so be it...but it doesnt take the run off the scoreboard.

That being said...Vander did not have a poor 3pt or FT percentage because he was a "young" freshman...moreso because his is a freshman. The "young" freshman stuff can maybe be assessed to his off-the-court issues...but on the court, he's the same age as everyone else in his class.

*Not making and example of Lenny - I have seen this "young freshman" thrown around a few times now....

[APieperFan3]

And if Vander is working as hard as he claims he is (via tweet) then I think we have A LOT to be excited about.

In fact, I hope we're having a similar poll posted next year!

[RawdogDX]

One of these players was had DJO & Buycks.  A very good player and a good college player, both of whom had played significant amount of minutes coming into the season.  That is without mentioning JR.
The other was behind Otule, a so-so college player who had logged hardly any minutes coming into the season.  

If we didn't' have Gardner then we would have been forced to go very small, very often.  If we didn't have Blue; DJO,  Buycks, and Cadougan would have had to play more.

Regardless of the stats it seems like losing Gardner would have been a bigger problem.  That said: "which would have been a more detrimental loss?" <> "who had a bigger impact?"  

[NersEllenson]

Saying that he was a "young" freshman is kind of a moot point. (He's not going to be an "old" freshman this year) It's like saying "Oh, I missed that catch b/c the sun was in my eyes"...Sure, if that makes you feel better for missing it, so be it...but it doesnt take the run off the scoreboard.

That being said...Vander did not have a poor 3pt or FT percentage because he was a "young" freshman...moreso because his is a freshman. The "young" freshman stuff can maybe be assessed to his off-the-court issues...but on the court, he's the same age as everyone else in his class.

*Not making and example of Lenny - I have seen this "young freshman" thrown around a few times now....

APiep 3 - While I agree that someone being a "young" freshman wouldn't affect a player's shooting ability - it definitely can impact their physical ability - which is on display when driving to the hoop, finishing through contact, limiting turnovers, being strong with the ball etc.  All of these attributes are valuable assets offensively, and as Vander gets older - with that will come additional strength/physicality which will benefit him.  To say Vander didn't struggle finishing on drives to the basket last year would be an outright lie.  I see this as an immediate area he will be better in in 2011-2012.

The NBA absolutely looks at players relative age when evaluating players to draft..as there are many people who don't fully fill out/stop growing, etc..until 23...and a guy like Jimmy Butler (also young for his class), can be looked at as having slightly more physical potential than a guy like Lazar...who left MU as solid 23 year old., 

[groove]

The main improvement for Vander will come mentally. If he gets to the point where the game slows down for him, all aspects of his game will start to improve. It seemed he was playing hyper and in a rush a lot. A lot of times the change occurs between the first and second year. I'm hoping that will be the case with Vander.

[Lennys Tap]

The main improvement for Vander will come mentally. If he gets to the point where the game slows down for him, all aspects of his game will start to improve. It seemed he was playing hyper and in a rush a lot. A lot of times the change occurs between the first and second year. I'm hoping that will be the case with Vander.

Excellent point. Whether a quarterback in football or a guard in basketball, the adjustment to the speed of the game is difficult when moving up a level.

[Goose]

I think Blue will play up to expectations and have a big impact. Gardner was a surprise to me and I hope he surprises again. Honestly my bar was very low going into last season. Blue came in high expectations and did not meet most those expectations. Blue is too good of a talent not to be a big contributor this upcoming season.

[tower912]

Blue, and it isn't that close.   DG positively impacted some games that we lost, but far more often, he played for a couple of minutes, was an embarrassment on defense, and was never heard from again.   For a large part of the year, he couldn't move quickly enough laterally to continue to 3/4 front the post when the ball got reversed.   He would inevitably be pinned behind his man.  If he had been able to play defense, he would have played more, but he simply did not play adequate defense a lot of the time.   As the season went on,  Blue struggled with his shot and his decision making.    But he still impacted  more games than DG.
     Going forward, I still do not see DG being able to handle more than 15 minutes a night nor guard a mobile 4.    Best case scenario is that he and CO are able to combine for 40 minutes a night at the 5.   I see the split as around 25 CO / 15 DG.    And if DG doesn't guard and CO stays out of foul trouble, it could be 28-12.   DG's ability to defend will determine his minutes more than his ability to score.     

[brewcity77]

Simply asking the question is "hating" on Vander. Not to mention that the way the question is phrased ("bigger, positive impact") suggests that Vander had a bigger impact, but much of it was negative. Vander played 703 minutes for a Sweet 16 team, while Gardner played 296. If Blue's positive impact wasn't greater than Gardner's then Buzz should have been fired. Don't get me wrong, I think Gardner is going to be a stud for MU but to ask that question at this point is asinine.

A year from now, I hope we're having a similar discussion about who was more worthy of their first team All Big East selection: Blue or Gardner.

Amen, Merritts. Absolutely spot on, everything you said there.

We don't win the USF or UConn games without Blue's contributions, meaning we don't make the NCAA's and don't make the S16. He hit a huge 3 against Bucknell during the comeback too. People act like all he did was drag the team down. McNeal's shot was butt ugly early on too, then at the end of his junior year it started to come around and he blew up senior year. Give the kid time, he was the age of a high school senior last year.

Agreed with everything there (though not really bothered about the age issue) and especially the "anchor" effect so many are asserting Blue had. As was mentioned by Merritts, if Blue was such a negative, Buzz deserved to be fired. His minutes should have went to Jamail, or Reggie Smith (maybe he'd still be here), or DG, or Frozena. Our coach saw merit in playing him. And obviously a lot of merit to give a true freshman 19 mpg. Suffice to say, I trust Buzz's judgment on whether or not Blue was having an "impact" on the team more than all the people that seem to think he's the albatross tied to our collective leg.

[esotericmindguy]

Blue played more games...more minutes...more points....and wasn't a defensive liability.  Blue got minutes in crunch time.  Gardner mostly didn't.

Those who think that DG had a "bigger impact" are only juding the two of them based on their incoming reputations.

Honestly, it makes me question the basketball IQ of the board if you chose Gardner.

I'm not, Blue was awful vs. conference opponents and in the tournament. His stats were better because of early success but he was a huge liability on offense. It was like playing 4 on 5, off setting what he did on the defensive end. Gardner improved down the stretch and played way better in the tournament, which heavily outweighs what blue did early.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think this is like comparing a platoon player in baseball to an everyday player.

A platoon player may have great splits, but that is because he is only playing in the match-ups where he is at his best.

An everyday player has to play against every pitcher, so it's tougher to keep great splits. He might not be great against lefties, but he has to play.

Gardner was only used when the matchups were good, or if he got off a to a good start. Vander played against the best all of the time, regardless of match-up.

Maybe you could compare Vander's best 300 minutes to Gardners best 300 minutes. Might be more of an apples to apples comparison.

[GGGG]

How did Gardner play better in the tournament?  He got garbage time against X and UNC and sat the entire second half v Syracuse. Don't let the stats deceive you.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I'd argue that Blue was the least valuable member of the squad last year.  I believe his overall contribution to the team was the largest net negative.

Blue had the worst offensive rating on the team, and still took a significant percentage of shots.  He was a boat anchor on offense.  There's no way Blue's defense was good enough to make up for how bad he was offensively. 

Just to remind everyone talking about Blue's defense, MU was not good defensively last year. 

Compared to being the least valuable member of the team, Gardner had a better impact on the team.

Thank you, Henry Sugar! Unless somebody proves to me otherwise, you cannot convince me that Blue's minutes were due to anything other than a commitment during recruitment. He absolutely did not belong on the floor for that number of minutes. Jones was more impressive than Blue for chrissakes!

[🏀]

Jones was more impressive than Blue for chrissakes!

And your last sentence tells the board you're clueless, again.

[ATL MU Warrior]

I'd argue that Blue was the least valuable member of the squad last year.  I believe his overall contribution to the team was the largest net negative.
Blue had the worst offensive rating on the team, and still took a significant percentage of shots.  He was a boat anchor on offense.  There's no way Blue's defense was good enough to make up for how bad he was offensively. 

Just to remind everyone talking about Blue's defense, MU was not good defensively last year. 

Compared to being the least valuable member of the team, Gardner had a better impact on the team.

This is so unbelievable I had to read it three times to make sure I wasn't in some sort of weird parallel universe 

[NersEllenson]

Henry Sugar is one of the best stats guys on this board.  Blues offensive efficiency was ATROCIOUS, Gardner's was SUPERB.  Blue's defensive prowess rarely led to steals, dunks, or points in transition.  He played solid on ball defense, but that's about it - particularly come Big East time - where he as horrendous offensively.  Vander's got a ton of potential and upside...but some of you here are really dissing Gardner's contribution/performance...to try to make it seem hands down Vander had a bigger impact.  The poll results thus far suggest many MU fans feel it is certainly a debatable topic...and by no means the landslide Brew, Merritt and Tower have made it out to be..

Gardner battled several injuries during the season that relegated him to the bench - or he'd have gotten more minutes. 

At least we have a good basketball discussion going on..

[Lennys Tap]

I think this is like comparing a platoon player in baseball to an everyday player.

A platoon player may have great splits, but that is because he is only playing in the match-ups where he is at his best.

An everyday player has to play against every pitcher, so it's tougher to keep great splits. He might not be great against lefties, but he has to play.

Gardner was only used when the matchups were good, or if he got off a to a good start. Vander played against the best all of the time, regardless of match-up.

Maybe you could compare Vander's best 300 minutes to Gardners best 300 minutes. Might be more of an apples to apples comparison.

Gardner had almost the same offensive numbers (.5pts and .6 rebs less) in less than half of Blue's minutes while shooting 16% better from the field and 14% better from the line. Your correct that you can't just double a guy stats who has 250 ABs and compare him with a guy with 500. But if the guy with 500 has only a couple of more hits than the guy with 250 that tells you something.